Freedom of Expression From the Standpoint of Mill’s on Liberty, Essay Example

In John Stuart Mill’s book Utilitarianism, he states that ethical decisions are the ones that provide the most benefit to the greatest number of people while minimizing harm for the greatest number of people. In this essay, I will consider whether utilitarianism is false on the grounds that it implies that even actions that cause severe harm to a few individuals can be qualified to be immoral. This is a false understanding of morality because we should not take actions that we know will cause direct harm to others. Even if such a decision were to benefit many, it is necessary to measure the good and evil that an action will bring about in order to determine whether it is worthwhile. Ultimately, the goal is to hurt none, and actions that cause severe pain to a small group should not be considered just, even if it benefits many.  The Utilitarianism view on freedom of speech is also addressed from Mill’s On Liberty, in which harm from speech is analyzed.  There are different extents of good and bad, and this weight must be considered in decision making in which many people will be impacted.

Utilitarianism implies that it is acceptable to severely hurt the few for the benefit of the many. It is therefore necessary to consider the consequences if a small group of individuals were to become hurt. For example, if a small number of individuals were not recognized in a government on the basis of their different ideas, the consequences could either be reasonable or immoral. In one case, their ideas would not be reflected by laws that were made, but they would be treated with respect and fairness in terms of the other laws that were established. In a second case, these individuals could be persecuted, tortured, and murdered for their different beliefs. It would be possible to argue that utilitarianism is just in the first case, as this minority group did not suffer any major consequences for their beliefs. However in the second example, their human rights were violated and great injustices were done. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the consequences of these decisions in terms of the extent to which harm can be done. Since no harm comes to the majority group in either example, it is the responsibility of the majority to ensure that the minority remains protected. If this is not possible, an alternate system for decision making should be considered to lessen the benefit/harm ratio between these two groups.

The belief that utilitarianism implies that even actions that cause severe harm to a few individuals can be qualified to be immoral is not held to be true by most individuals. In large democratic societies, this belief is often necessary to ensure that government can run properly. However, moral societies provide protections for their minority groups. Even though their beliefs are typically not represented by politicians, these politicians ensure that there are government programs in place to support their livelihood and to protect them against those who disagree with them. Therefore, it is clear that utilitarianism can work in societies with dual definitions of morality. Even though they believe that decisions should be made to benefit the most, they understand that it is necessary to minimize the negative impacts suffered by minority groups as a consequence.

The utilitarianism belief of freedom of speech can be observed in Mill’s On Liberty.  Mills argues that liberty of expression should not be censored for opinion to speech, whether or not the authorities are the ones censoring the speech. In his On Liberty, he argues that there must be liberty to the freedom of expression for the rights and justice to the people through the practice of utilitarianism.  Although, the freedom of speech is recognized in democratic societies, the problem or confliction with the utilitarianism view is that freedom of speech in a democratic nation leads to issues on hate speech.  The utilitarianism thought suggests that no matter what the speech is in a democratic society, whether hate speech or not, should not be restricted.  Utilitarianism views, although may not be in support of hate speech, believes that it restricts the liberty of expression and violates the first amendment.  Although there is support for freedom of speech through the utilitarianism views, there is a means to include speech that can cause harm.  The question that persists is whether or not it is right to have freedom of speech when harm is being caused, as observed in hate speech.  Utilitarianism is based on individual rights for people to self-express and promote utility and happiness; however, there needs to be a balance on the rights of the people for freedom of speech and speech that is harmful.  (Muniz 89-90)

Many Middle Eastern countries uphold that utilitarianism is an ideal method in which the government should be run, but this becomes problematic when the majority and minority leaders are prone to violence. For example, individuals who consider themselves to be Sunni and Shia Muslims are considered majority leaders of different countries in this region. In the areas in which Sunni leaders are considered to be the majority, Shia Muslims are deprived of human rights and attacked on the basis of their religious beliefs. Similarly, in the areas in which Shia Muslims are considered to be the majority, Sunni Muslims are deprived of rights and attacked. This is an example of a situation in which utilitarianism does not work. Even though the interests of the majority is being represented in these respective countries, the civil and human rights of other groups living in these areas are completely sacrificed. It is not simply that they are being governed by the majority; they are being unfairly treated by the majority and are therefore unable to coexist. In order for utilitarianism to be successful, it is essential to consider that majority leaders must at least respect the opinion of the minority, whether or not this opinion will be incorporated into the governing. In addition, these majority leaders must have a respect for the lives of the minority. A system cannot be considered ethical if lives are being lost for the majority to live in the manner that they deem to be suitable.

Mill’s utilitarianism is correct because it implies that an act is right if it yields the greatest balance in the world of pleasure over pain among all alternative acts. However, this is one of the principles incorporated into this philosophy that are typically not utilized. The typical government representative tends to think of the principle as “majority rules”. Utilitarianism should ultimately be avoided because the sense that the greatest balance of pleasure over pain could be achieved can still cause an unjust amount of pain to the few. All people have the same natural rights and therefore must be protected. It is not our responsibility to decide which people should suffer and which should live happily. Of course, suffering has a broad definition. It is possible for an action to be moral if it causes pleasure for the majority and a sense of unpleasantness for the minority. However, no political decision should ever directly interfere with a group’s ability to remain alive just as no political decision should ever unfairly subject a dissenting group to torture. Torture and murder are acts that are only acceptable provided that these groups carry out these same acts on the greater majority because this becomes an equalizer.

In conclusion, while utilitarianism was designed so that groups and governments would understand how to participate in a code of moral decision making, the principle only works for groups that enact other codes of morality. This is can be observed in the freedom of speech in democratic nations.  Although utilitarianism views support freedom of speech, if this were to be enacted, it would be dependent upon the moral people and their decision making to not include hate speech in their rights.  While considering the wants and needs of the majority is an excellent starting point for running a system, it is necessary to determine whether these needs are moral as far as the minority is concerned. It is necessary to consider whether the wants and needs will cause these minority groups pain, and what can be done to avoid this. As a consequence, it is the responsibility of each group to determine whether their interpretation of utilitarianism is moral. If it is not, it is necessary for them to develop an alternative method to guide their frequent practices. If it is moral, utilitarianism can prove to be an effective mode of ethical governing.

Works Cited

Muniz, J.R. Freedom of Expression from the Standpoint of J.S. Mill’s On Liberty.

Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Utilitaristas-2007-2009. (2009) 75-95. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/owner/Downloads/965-2640-1-SM.pdf